dp 13: erwinia amylovora - ippc · united states are distinct from the strains on other hosts...

Produced by the Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC)

ENG

DIA

GN

OST

IC P

ROTO

CO

LSIN

TERN

ATI

ON

AL

STA

ND

ARD

FO

R PH

YTO

SAN

ITA

RY M

EASU

RES

ISPM 27ANNEX 13

DP 13: Erwinia amylovora

27

This page is intentionally left blank

This diagnostic protocol was adopted by the Standards Committee on behalf of the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures

in August 2016.

The annex is a prescriptive part of ISPM 27.

International Plant Protection Convention DP 13-1

ISPM 27 Diagnostic protocols for regulated pests

DP 13: Erwinia amylovora

Adopted 2016; published 2016

CONTENTS

1. Pest Information ............................................................................................................................... 3

2. Taxonomic Information .................................................................................................................... 3

3. Detection ........................................................................................................................................... 3

3.1 Detection in plants with symptoms ................................................................................... 4

3.1.1 Symptoms .......................................................................................................................... 4

3.1.2 Sampling and sample preparation ..................................................................................... 4

3.1.3 Isolation ............................................................................................................................. 5

3.1.3.1 Isolation from symptomatic samples ................................................................................. 5

3.1.3.2 Enrichment-isolation ......................................................................................................... 6

3.1.4 Serological detection ......................................................................................................... 6

3.1.4.1 Enrichment-DASI-ELISA ................................................................................................. 6

3.1.4.2 Direct tissue print-ELISA.................................................................................................. 7

3.1.4.3 Immunofluorescence ......................................................................................................... 7

3.1.4.4 Lateral flow immunoassay ................................................................................................ 8

3.1.5 Molecular detection ........................................................................................................... 8

3.1.5.1 Controls for molecular tests .............................................................................................. 8

3.1.5.2 DNA extraction ................................................................................................................. 9

3.1.5.3 DNA amplification by PCR .............................................................................................. 9

3.1.5.4 General considerations for PCR ...................................................................................... 11

3.1.5.5 Real-time PCR ................................................................................................................ 12

3.1.5.6 Interpretation of results from PCR .................................................................................. 13

3.1.5.7 Loop-mediated isothermal amplification ........................................................................ 13

3.2 Detection in asymptomatic plants ................................................................................... 14

3.2.1 Sampling and sample preparation ................................................................................... 14

3.2.2 Screening tests ................................................................................................................. 15

4. Identification ................................................................................................................................... 15

4.1 Nutritional and enzymatic identification ......................................................................... 16

4.1.1 Biochemical characterization .......................................................................................... 16

4.1.1.1 Nutritional and enzymatic profiling ................................................................................ 16

4.1.1.2 Automated identification ................................................................................................. 17

4.1.1.3 Fatty acid profiling .......................................................................................................... 17

4.2 Serological identification ................................................................................................ 17

4.2.1 Agglutination ................................................................................................................... 17

DP 13 Diagnostic protocols for regulated pests

DP 13-2 International Plant Protection Convention

4.2.2 Immunofluorescence ....................................................................................................... 17

4.2.3 ELISA ............................................................................................................................. 17

4.2.4 Lateral flow immunoassay .............................................................................................. 18

4.3 Molecular identification .................................................................................................. 18

4.3.1 PCR ................................................................................................................................. 18

4.3.2 Macro-restriction and pulsed field gel electrophoresis ................................................... 18

4.4 Pathogenicity techniques ................................................................................................. 18

5. Records ........................................................................................................................................... 19

6. Contact Points for Further Information .......................................................................................... 19

7. Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ 19

8. References ...................................................................................................................................... 19

9. Figures ............................................................................................................................................ 23

Diagnostic protocols for regulated pests DP 13


1. Pest Information

Erwinia amylovora is the causal agent of fire blight, a disease that affects most species of the

subfamily Maloideae of the family Rosaceae (Spiraeoideae). It was the first bacterium described as the

causal agent of a plant disease (Burrill, 1883). E. amylovora is considered to be native to North

America and was first detected outside North America in New Zealand in 1920. Fire blight was

reported in England in 1957 and since then the bacterium has been detected in most areas of Europe

where susceptible hosts are cultivated. E. amylovora is now present in more than 40 countries. It has

not been recorded in South America and most African and Asian countries (with the exception of

countries surrounding the Mediterranean Sea), and it has been eradicated in Australia after one report

there (van der Zwet, 2004). It represents a threat to the pome fruit industry of all these countries (Bonn

and van der Zwet, 2000). Details on geographic distribution can be found in the European and

Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) Plant Quarantine Data Retrieval System (EPPO,

n.d.).

The most important host plants from both economic and epidemiological viewpoints are in the genera

Chaenomeles, Cotoneaster, Crataegus, Cydonia, Eriobotrya, Malus, Mespilus, Pyracantha, Pyrus,

Sorbus and Stranvaesia (Bradbury, 1986). The E. amylovora strains isolated from Rubus sp. in the

United States are distinct from the strains on other hosts (Starr et al., 1951; Powney et al., 2011b).

Fire blight is probably the most serious bacterial disease affecting Pyrus communis (pear) and Malus

domestica (apple) cultivars in many countries. Epidemics are sporadic and are dependent on a number

of factors, including favourable environmental conditions, sufficient inoculum level present in the

orchard and host susceptibility. The disease is easily dispersed by birds, insects, rain or wind

(Thomson, 2000). The development of fire blight symptoms follows the seasonal growth development

of the host plant. The disease begins in spring with the production of the primary inoculum from

bacteria overwintering in cankers (Thomson, 2000) causing blossom infection, continues into summer

with shoot and fruit infection, and ends in winter with the development of cankers throughout the

dormant period of the host (van der Zwet and Beer, 1995; Thomson, 2000).

2. Taxonomic Information

Name: Erwinia amylovora (Burrill, 1883) Winslow et al., 1920

Synonyms: Micrococcus amylovorus Burrill, 1883, Bacillus amylovorus (Burrill,

1883) Trevisan, 1889, “Bacterium amylovorus” [sic] (Burrill, 1883)

Chester, 1897, Erwinia amylovora f.sp. rubi (Starr et al., 1951)

Taxonomic position: Proteobacteria, Y subdivision, Enterobacteriales, Enterobacteriaceae

Common name: Fire blight (EPPO, 2013)

3. Detection

Diagnosis of fire blight can be achieved using isolation and serological and molecular tests. The assays

indicated below are recommended after having been evaluated in one or more of the following ring

tests: in 2003 in a Diagnostic Protocols for Organisms Harmful to Plants (DIAGPRO) project

involving ten laboratories (López et al., 2006); in 2009 in a European Phytosanitary Research

Coordination (EUPHRESCO) project involving five laboratories (Dreo et al., 2009); and in 2010 by

fourteen laboratories worldwide (López et al., 2010). The tests indicated in Figures 1 and 2 are the

minimum requirements for the diagnosis, but further tests may be required by the national plant

protection organization (NPPO), especially for the first report in a country. For example, serological

tests may facilitate a presumptive diagnosis of symptomatic plant material based on the detection of a

specific protein; however, an additional test based on a different biological principle should be used

for detection. In all tests, positive and negative controls must be included.



In this diagnostic protocol, methods (including reference to brand names) are described as published,

as these defined the original level of sensitivity, specificity and/or reproducibility achieved. The use of

names of reagents, chemicals or equipment in these diagnostic protocols implies no approval of them

to the exclusion of others that may also be suitable. Laboratory procedures presented in the protocols

may be adjusted to the standards of individual laboratories, provided that they are adequately

validated.

3.1 Detection in plants with symptoms

The recommended screening tests are indicated in the flow diagram in Figure 1.

3.1.1 Symptoms

Symptoms of fire blight on the most common hosts such as P. communis (pear), M. domestica,

(apple), Cydonia spp. (quince), Eriobotrya japonica (loquat), Cotoneaster spp. (cotoneaster),

Pyracantha spp. (pyracantha) and Crataegus spp. (hawthorn) are similar and easily recognized. The

name of the disease is descriptive of its major characteristic: the brownish, necrotic appearance of

twigs, flowers and leaves, as though they had been burned by fire. The typical symptoms are the

brown to black colour of leaves on affected branches, the production of exudate, and the characteristic

“shepherd’s crook” of terminal shoots. Depending on the affected plant part, the disease produces

blossom blight, shoot or twig blight, leaf blight, fruit blight, limb or trunk blight, or collar or rootstock

blight (van der Zwet and Keil, 1979; van der Zwet and Beer, 1995).

In apple and pear trees the first symptoms usually appear in early spring when the average temperature

rises above 15 °C, during humid weather. Infected blossoms become soaked with water, then wilt,

shrivel, and turn orange or brown to black. Peduncles may also appear water-soaked, and become dark

green and finally brown or black, sometimes oozing droplets of sticky bacterial exudate. Infected

leaves wilt and shrivel, and entire spurs turn brown in apples and dark brown to black in pears, but

remain attached to the tree for some time. Upon infection young fruitlets turn brown but also remain

attached to the tree. Immature fruit lesions appear oily or water-soaked, become brown to black, and

often ooze droplets of bacterial exudate. Characteristic reddish-brown streaks are often found in the

subcortical tissues when the bark is peeled from infected limbs or twigs (van der Zwet and Keil, 1979;

Thomson, 2000). Brown to black slightly depressed cankers form in the bark of twigs, branches or the

trunk of infected trees. These cankers later become defined by cracks near the margin of diseased and

healthy tissue (Thomson, 2000).

Confusion may occur between fire blight and blight- or blast-like symptoms – especially in blossoms

and buds – caused by other pathogenic bacteria and fungi, insect damage or physiological disorders.

Other bacteria that cause fire blight-like symptoms include Erwinia pyrifoliae, the causal agent of

bacterial shoot blight of Pyrus pyrifolia (Asian pear) (Kim et al., 1999); Erwinia piriflorinigrans,

isolated from necrotic pear blossoms in Spain (López et al., 2011); Erwinia uzenensis, recently

described in Japan (Matsuura et al., 2012); other Erwinia spp. reported in Japan that cause bacterial

shoot blight (Tanii et al., 1981; Kim et al., 2001a, 2001b; Palacio-Bielsa et al., 2012); and

Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae, the causal agent of blossom blast. A definitive diagnosis of fire

blight should always be obtained through laboratory analysis.

3.1.2 Sampling and sample preparation

Plant material should be analysed as soon as possible after collection, but may be stored at 4–8 ºC for

up to one week until processing. Precautions to avoid cross-contamination should be taken when

collecting samples, during transport and processing, and especially while isolating the bacterium or

extracting DNA.

The samples should be processed with a general procedure valid for isolation, serological tests and

polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis. The use of freshly prepared antioxidant maceration buffer

(polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP)-10, 20 g; mannitol, 10 g; ascorbic acid, 1.76 g; reduced glutathione, 3 g;

phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), 10 mM, 1 litre; pH 7.2; sterilized by filtration) is required for



successful enrichment, as indicated by Gorris et al. (1996). The samples can be processed also in

sterile distilled water or in PBS, pH 7.2 (NaCl, 8 g; KCl, 0.2 g; Na2HPO4·12H2O, 2.9 g; KH2PO4, 0.2 g; distilled water, 1 litre) but for direct isolation, immunofluorescence or PCR.

Plant parts (flowers, shoots, twigs, leaves or fruit) showing the most typical symptoms, and with

bacterial exudate if possible, are carefully selected. Material for processing is selected from the

leading edge of disease lesions. The plant tissue is cut into pieces of approximately 0.1–1.0 g, crushed

lightly in antioxidant maceration buffer, PBS or sterile distilled water (as described in the previous

paragraph) at 1:50 (w/v), left to stand for at least 5 min, and placed on ice for a few minutes. Triplicate

samples (1 ml each) of each macerate are transferred to sterile microcentrifuge tubes, with one tube

stored at –20 ºC for subsequent analysis by PCR and another tube’s contents adjusted to 30% glycerol

and stored at –80 ºC for confirmation testing, if necessary. The third tube is kept on ice for performing

enrichment before enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) or PCR, and isolation on selective

media (Figure 1). If immunofluorescence is to be performed (i.e. immunofluorescence analysis is

optional), the slides are prepared and fixed on the same day that the samples are macerated. The PCR

analysis should be performed as soon as is convenient, using the macerated sample stored at –20 ºC.

3.1.3 Isolation

3.1.3.1 Isolation from symptomatic samples

In general, plating on three media is advised for maximum likelihood of recovery of E. amylovora,

especially when samples are not in good condition. Depending on the amount and composition of the

microbiota of the sample, each medium can be more or less efficient. Three media (CCT, King’s B

and levan) have been validated in two ring tests, with levan having the highest plating efficiency.

When symptoms are very advanced or the environmental conditions after infection are not favourable

for bacterial multiplication, the number of culturable E. amylovora cells can be very low. Isolation

under these conditions can result in plates with few cells of the pathogen and that can be overcrowded

with saprophytic and antagonistic bacteria. If this is suspected, the sample should be re-tested and/or

enriched before isolation. The induction of the reversible viable but non-culturable state (VBNC) has

been described for E. amylovora in vitro using copper treatments and in fruits (Ordax et al., 2009), and

it can be the cause of false negative isolation results.The recipes for the recommended media are

described below:

- CCT medium is prepared in two parts. Part 1 consists of: sucrose, 100 g; sorbitol, 10 g; Niaproof,4 1.2 ml; crystal violet, 2 ml (solvent 0.1% ethanol); nutrient agar, 23 g; distilled

water, 1 litre; pH 7.0–7.2; sterilized by autoclaving at 115 ºC for 10 min. The autoclaved

medium is cooled to approximately 45 ºC. Part 2 consists of: thallium nitrate, 2 ml (1% w/v

aqueous solution); cycloheximide, 0.05 g; sterilized by filtration. Part 2 is added to 1 litre sterile

Part 1 (Ishimaru and Klos, 1984).

- King’s B medium consists of: proteose peptone no. 3, 20 g; glycerol, 10 ml; K2HPO4, 1.5 g; MgSO4.7H2O, 1.5 g; agar, 15 g; distilled water, 1 litre; pH 7.0–7.2; sterilized by autoclaving at

120 ºC for 20 min (King et al., 1954).

- Levan medium consists of: yeast extract, 2 g; bactopeptone, 5 g; NaCl, 5 g; sucrose, 50 g; agar, 20 g; distilled water, 1 litre; pH 7.0–7.2; sterilized by autoclaving at 120 ºC for 20 min.

Cycloheximide is added at 0.05 g/litre to King’s B and levan media when fungi are expected in the

isolation. Dilutions of 1:10 and 1:100 of each macerate are prepared in PBS (NaCl, 8 g; KCl, 0.2 g;

Na2HPO4·12H2O, 2.9 g; KH2PO4, 0.2 g; distilled water, 1 litre).

Preferably 100 µl of the macerates and their dilutions is spread, by triple streaking, in 130 mm plates,

or 50 µl is spread in standard 90 mm Petri dishes. Plates are incubated at 25 ºC for up to four days.

The final reading is usually taken at 72 h. Colonies of E. amylovora on CCT medium are pale violet,

circular, high convex to domed, smooth and mucoid, and they grow more slowly than on King’s B or

levan media. Colonies on King’s B medium are creamy white, circular and non-fluorescent under



ultraviolet (UV) light at 366 nm. Colonies on levan medium are white, circular, domed, smooth and

mucoid. Levan-negative colonies of E. amylovora have been reported (Bereswill et al., 1997).

Pure cultures are obtained from individual suspect colonies of each sample by dilution and streaking

onto King’s B medium. Presumptive colonies of E. amylovora are identified preferably by double

antibody sandwich indirect (DASI)-ELISA, PCR or by other appropriate tests (e.g. biochemical,

immunofluorescence, fatty acid profile), or by inoculating susceptible organs of any available

E. amylovora host to test pathogenicity, as indicated in section 4.

When analysing symptomatic samples, good correlation is expected between isolation,

immunofluorescence, enrichment-DASI-ELISA (section 3.1.4.1) and PCR.

In the 2003 and 2010 ring tests, the accuracy of isolation was 0.88 and 0.81 for King’s B, 0.92 and

0.89 for levan, and 0.92 and 0.95 for CCT media, respectively (López et al., 2006; M.M. Lopez,

personal communication, 2012). In the 2009 ring test, accuracy of isolation was 0.96 for CCT (Dreo

et al., 2009).

3.1.3.2 Enrichment-isolation

Enrichment is used to multiply the initial population of culturable E. amylovora in a sample and to

perform enrichment-DASI-ELISA or enrichment-PCR. It should be carried out before isolation (even

for symptomatic samples) when a low number of culturable E. amylovora cells is expected to be

present (e.g. for copper-treated samples, samples with old symptoms, samples collected during

unfavourable weather conditions for fire blight such as in winter). The enrichment step greatly

increases the sensitivity of DASI-ELISA. The use of two validated liquid media for enrichment – one

non-selective (King’s B) and one semi-selective (CCT) – is advised because the composition and

population size of the microbiota are unknown.

The tissue sample is macerated as described in section 3.1.2 and 0.9 ml is immediately dispensed into

each of two sterile 10–15 ml tubes (to ensure sufficient aeration) containing 0.9 ml of each liquid

enrichment medium (King’s B without agar, and CCT made with nutrient broth instead of nutrient

agar). The tubes are incubated at 25 ºC for 48–72 h without shaking. A longer incubation is

recommended when processing plant samples collected in winter. Both enrichment broths and

dilutions (1:10 and 1:100) prepared in PBS are spread onto CCT plates, by triple streaking, to obtain

isolated colonies. Plates are incubated at 25 ºC for 72–96 h. Final reading of the CCT plates is at 72 h

and must be followed by purification of colonies and identification.

The use of semi-selective medium for plating and dilution is advised because the enrichment step will

permit growth of the pathogen but will also allow abundant multiplication of other bacteria. The

accuracy of the enrichment isolation on King’s B and CCT was 0.97 in the 2010 ring test.

3.1.4 Serological detection

3.1.4.1 Enrichment-DASI-ELISA

A kit for enrichment-DASI-ELISA has been validated in two ring tests and is available commercially

from Plant Print Diagnòstics SL1. It is based on the mixture of two specific monoclonal antibodies

described in Gorris et al. (1996) and requires prior enrichment of the samples, as previously described.

The following protocol must be followed strictly for maximum accuracy. Before ELISA, the required

amount of the enriched extracts and controls is treated by incubation in a water bath at 100 ºC for

10 min. This treatment is necessary for optimum specificity. The boiled samples are processed (at

1 In this diagnostic protocol, methods (including reference to brand names) are described as published, as these

defined the original level of sensitivity, specificity and/or reproducibility achieved. The use of names of

reagents, chemicals or equipment in these diagnostic protocols implies no approval of them to the exclusion of

others that may also be suitable. Laboratory procedures presented in the protocols may be adjusted to the

standards of individual laboratories, provided that they are adequately validated.



room temperature) by ELISA on the same day (or stored at –20 ºC for subsequent analysis) following

the instructions provided by the manufacturer of the commercial kit.

The ELISA is negative if the average optical density (OD) reading from duplicate sample wells is 2×

the OD in the negative sample extract control wells (providing all negative control wells are lower

than 2× the average OD reading of the positive control wells).

Negative ELISA readings in positive control wells indicate that the test has not been performed

correctly and/or the reagents were not well prepared. Positive ELISA readings in negative control

wells indicate cross-contamination or non-specific antibody binding. In both cases, the test should be

repeated or a second test based on a different biological principle, such as PCR, should be performed.

In the 2003 and 2010 ring tests the accuracy of the DASI-ELISA was 0.79 and 0.82, respectively, for

enrichment in King’s B medium (King’s B-DASI-ELISA), and 0.83 and 0.77, respectively, for

enrichment in CCT medium (CCT-DASI-ELISA) (López et al., 2006, 2010).

3.1.4.2 Direct tissue print-ELISA

To make tissue prints, freshly cut plant sections are pressed carefully against a nitrocellulose

membrane. Prints are prepared for positive and negative controls. Printed membranes can be kept for

several months in a dry place at room temperature. A validated source of antibodies to E. amylovora

such as the Plant Print Diagnòstics SL kit1 should be used. To develop prints, the manufacturer’s

instructions should be followed. The prints are observed under low power magnification (×10 or ×20).

The test is positive when purple–violet precipitates appear in the sections of plant tissue that are

printed on the membrane and not in the plant tissue print of the negative control. If exudates or

colonies are printed they should appear violet when positive. The test is negative when no purple–

violet precipitates appear, as in the negative control.

3.1.4.3 Immunofluorescence

Immunofluorescence is a recommended alternative serological method, and it is easy to follow the

standard protocol (Anonymous, 1998). A validated source of antibodies to E. amylovora should be

used. Two commercial antibodies have been validated in one ring test: one monoclonal antibody is

available through Plant Print Diagnòstics SL1 and one polyclonal antibody is available from Loewe

Biochemicals1.

Immunofluorescence should be performed on fresh sample extracts fixed onto slides. Undiluted

macerates and dilutions of 1:10 and 1:100 in PBS are used to spot windows of the

immunofluorescence slides. The monoclonal or polyclonal antibody is used at the appropriate dilution

in PBS. The appropriate fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC) conjugate is diluted in PBS: goat anti-

mouse for monoclonal antibody (GAM-FITC), and goat anti-rabbit (GAR-FITC) or anti-goat for

polyclonal antibody.

The test on a sample is negative if green fluorescing cells with morphology typical of E. amylovora

are observed in the positive controls, but not in the sample windows. The test on a sample is positive if

green fluorescing cells with typical morphology are observed in the positive controls and in the sample

windows, but not in the negative controls. As a population of 103 cells/ml is considered the limit for

reliable detection by immunofluorescence, for samples with >103 cells/ml, the immunofluorescence

test is considered positive. For samples with



3.1.4.4 Lateral flow immunoassay

Two lateral flow devices are available commercially for rapid analysis of plant material: Ea AgriStrip

(Bioreba1) and Pocket Diagnostics (Forsite Diagnostics1). Following the manufacturers’ instructions

their accuracy in the 2009 and 2010 ring tests was 0.66 and 0.55, respectively, for Ea AgriStrip1 and

0.64 and 0.56, respectively, for Pocket Diagnostics1. These results were obtained for the detection of

E. amylovora in samples from 1 to106 c.f.u./g, but the accuracy was approximately 1.0 when analysing

samples with 105 to 106 c.f.u./g, the minimum number expected in symptomatic samples (López et al.,

2010). The kits are recommended for use only with symptomatic samples.

3.1.5 Molecular detection

Several PCR methods and one loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) protocol2, available

for the detection of E. amylovora, were evaluated extensively in ring testing by several laboratories

(Lopez et al., 2010; M.M. Lopez, personal communication, 2012). The specificity of some of these

methods has been evaluated by Powney et al. (2011a). Conventional PCR methods may be more

expensive and time consuming and usually require more training than serological methods, and for

these reasons, as well as the risk of contamination, they are not always appropriate for large-scale

testing. However, real-time PCR and some conventional PCR and nested PCR in one tube protocols

have provided highly accurate results and they are therefore recommended molecular methods. All

PCR assays should be performed using DNA extracted from the samples because of the high amount

of inhibitors of E. amylovora hosts, or from enriched samples, which have increased reliability of

detection.

3.1.5.1 Controls for molecular tests

For the test result obtained to be considered reliable, appropriate controls – which will depend on the

type of test used and the level of certainty required – should be considered for each series of nucleic

acid isolation and amplification of the target nucleic acid. For PCR a positive nucleic acid control, an

internal control and a negative amplification control (no template control) are the minimum controls

that should be used.

Positive nucleic acid control

This control is used to monitor the efficiency of the test method (apart from the extraction), and

specifically the amplification. Pre-prepared (stored) nucleic acid, whole genome amplified DNA or a

synthetic control (e.g. cloned PCR product) may be used.

Internal control

For conventional and real-time PCR, plant internal controls (e.g. a housekeeping gene (HKG) such as

COX (Weller et al., 2000) or 16S ribosomal (r)DNA (Weisberg et al., 1991)) should be incorporated

into the protocol to eliminate the possibility of PCR false negatives due to nucleic acid extraction

failure or degradation or the presence of PCR inhibitors.

Negative amplification control (no template control)

This control is necessary for conventional and real-time PCR to rule out false positives due to

contamination during preparation of the reaction mixture. PCR-grade water that was used to prepare

the reaction mixture is added at the amplification stage.

2 When using LAMP on a regular basis in an area that has a patent system such as Japan (patent no.s 3 313 358,

3 974 441 and 4 139 424), the United States (US6 410 278, US6 974 670 and US7 494 790), the European

Union (no.s 1 020 534, 1 873 260, 2 045 337 and 2 287 338), China (ZL008818262), the Republic of Korea

(patent no. 10-0612551), Australia (no. 779160) and the Russian Federation (no. 2 252 964), it is necessary for

users to obtain a licence from Eiken Chemical Co., Ltd before use to protect the intellectual property right.



Positive extraction control

This control is used to ensure that target nucleic acid extracted is of sufficient quantity and quality and

that the target is detected. Nucleic acid is extracted from infected host tissue or healthy plant tissue

that has been spiked with the target.

The positive control should be approximately one-tenth of the amount of leaf tissue used per plant for

the DNA extraction.

For PCR, care needs to be taken to avoid cross-contamination due to aerosols from the positive control

or from positive samples. If required, the positive control used in the laboratory should be sequenced

so that this sequence can be readily compared with sequence obtained from PCR amplicons of the

correct size. Alternatively, synthetic positive controls can be made with a known sequence that, again,

can be compared with PCR amplicons of the correct size.

Negative extraction control

This control is used to monitor contamination during nucleic acid extraction and/or cross-reaction with

the host tissue. The control compromises nucleic acid that is extracted from uninfected host tissue and

subsequently amplified. Multiple controls are recommended to be included when large numbers of

positive samples are expected.

3.1.5.2 DNA extraction

Three DNA extraction methods – Llop et al. (1999), Taylor et al. (2001) and the REDExtract-N-Amp

Plant PCR Kit (Sigma-Aldrich1) – were evaluated in the 2009 ring test (Dreo et al., 2009) with four

PCR protocols with accuracies ranging from 0.67 to 0.76. The methods showed comparable results in

the 2010 ring test (Lopez et al., 2010), as indicated below in the accuracies given for the different PCR

methods. Their efficiencies did not improve after diluting the extracts 1:10, suggesting that few or no

inhibitors were present. Based on these findings, the Llop et al. (1999) extraction method is

recommended as it has been extensively tested in a number of countries and is cheap and easy to set

up in the laboratory.

DNA extraction according to Llop et al. (1999)

One millilitre of a sample macerate prepared according to section 3.1.2 and/or 1 ml enriched macerate

is centrifuged at 10 000 g for 5 min at room temperature. The supernatant is discarded, and the pellet

is resuspended in 500 µl extraction buffer (Tris-HCl pH 7.5, 24.2 g; NaCl, 14.6 g;

ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), 9.3 g; sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS), 5 g; PVP-10, 20 g;

distilled water, 1 litre; sterilized by filtration) and incubated for 1 h at room temperature before

centrifugation at 4 000 g for 5 min. Approximately 450 µl supernatant is mixed with an equal volume

of isopropanol, inverted, and left at room temperature for 30 min to 1 h. The precipitated nucleic acid

is centrifuged at 10 000 g for 5 min, the supernatant is discarded and the pellet is air-dried. If there is

still a coloured precipitate (brown or green) at the bottom of the tube, this is carefully removed while

discarding the supernatant, thus obtaining a cleaner DNA pellet. The pellet is resuspended in 200 µl

water. It should be used for PCR immediately or stored at –20 ºC.

3.1.5.3 DNA amplification by PCR

There are many PCR primers and protocols described for E. amylovora detection and some have

shown specificity problems (Roselló et al., 2006; Powney et al., 2011a). The primers and protocols

validated in ring tests were those of Bereswill et al. (1992) and Llop et al. (2000), with or without

previous enrichment, in 2003; and those of Taylor et al. (2001), Stöger et al. (2006) and Obradovic

et al. (2007) in 2009 and 2010. The discovery of fully virulent E. amylovora strains without the

pEA29 plasmid (Llop et al., 2006) and experiences from different countries (Powney et al., 2011a)

indicate that two PCR protocols should be used: one with primers based on pEA29 sequences, and

another with primers targeting unique chromosomal sequences. If the PCR is negative with the

protocol based on the pEA29 primers and positive with the protocol based on the chromosomal



primers, the PCR test can be considered as positive for E. amylovora. PCR can be carried out using the

primers and conditions validated in the ring tests, although amplification conditions should be

optimized for different thermocyclers.

PCR according to Bereswill et al. (1992)

The primers are:

A (forward): 5′-CGG TTT TTA ACG CTG GG-3′

B (reverse): 5′-GGG CAA ATA CTC GGA TT-3′

The targeted sequences are in the plasmid pEA29. The PCR mixture is composed of: ultrapure water,

17.4 µl; buffer 10×, 2.5 µl; MgCl2 50 mM, 1.5 µl; dNTPs 10 mM, 0.5 µl; primer A 10 pmol/µl,

0.25 µl; primer B 10 pmol/µl, 0.25 µl; and Taq DNA polymerase 5 U/µl, 0.1 µl. The extracted DNA

sample volume is 2.5 μl, and should be added to 22.5 μl of the PCR mix. The cycling parameters are a

denaturation step of 93 ºC for 5 min followed by 40 cycles of 93 ºC for 30 s, 52 ºC for 30 s and 72 ºC

for 1 min 15 s, with a final elongation step at 72 ºC for 10 min. The amplicon size is 900 base pairs

(bp) according to Bereswill et al. (1992), although variations in size can occur between 900 and

1 100 bp depending on the number of 8 bp repeats within the amplified fragment (Jones and Geider,

2001).

The accuracy was 0.51 in the 2003 ring test but increased to 0.74 and 0.78 after enrichment of the

samples in King’s B and CCT media, respectively (López et al., 2006).

PCR according to Taylor et al. (2001)

The primers are:

G1-F: 5′-CCT GCA TAA ATC ACC GCT GAC AGC TCA ATG-3′

G2-R: 5′-GCT ACC ACT GAT CGC TCG AAT CAA ATC GGC-3′

The targeted sequences are chromosomal. The PCR mixture is composed of: ultrapure water, 14.3 µl;

buffer 10×, 2.5 µl; MgCl2 50 mM, 0.75 µl; dNTPs 10 mM, 0.25 µl; G1-F 10pmol/µl, 1 µl; G2-R

10pmol/µl, 1 µl; and Taq DNA polymerase 5 U/µl, 0.2 µl. An extracted DNA sample of 5 μl is added

to 45 μl PCR mix. The cycling parameters are 95 ºC for 3 min followed by 40 cycles of 94 ºC for 30 s,

60 ºC for 30 s and 72 ºC for 1 min, with a final extension step at 72 ºC for 5 min, and cooling at 15 ºC.

The expected amplicon size is 187 bp.

The accuracy was 0.77 in the 2010 ring test using the Llop et al. (1999) DNA extraction procedure.

PCR according to Stöger et al. (2006)

The primers (from Llop et al., 2000) are:

PEANT1-F: 5′-TAT CCC TAA AAA CCT CAG TGC-3′

PEANT2-R: 5′-GCA ACC TTG TGC CCT TTA-3′

The targeted sequences are in the plasmid pEA29. Stöger et al. (2006) recommended this method be

used with DNA extracted using the REDExtract-N-Amp Plant PCR Kit (Sigma-Aldrich1). The PCR

mixture is composed of: ultrapure water, 5 µl; REDExtract-N-Amp PCR ReadyMix (Sigma-Aldrich1),

10 µl; PEANT1-F 10 pmol/µl, 0.5 µl; PEANT2-R 10 pmol/µl, 0.5 µl; and extracted DNA, 4 µl. The

cycling parameters are 95 °C for 5 min followed by 35 cycles of 95 °C for 15 s, 58 °C for 30 s and

72 °C for 45 s, with a final extension step at 72 °C for 5 min, and cooling at 15 °C. The expected

amplicon size is 391 bp.

The accuracy was 0.76 in the 2009 ring test and 0.72 in the 2010 ring test with the recommended DNA

extraction kit.



PCR according to Gottsberger (2010) (adapted from Obradovic et al. (2007))

The primers are:

FER1-F: 5′-AGC AGC AAT TAA TGG CAA GTA TAG TCA-3′

rgER2-R: 5′-AAA AGA GAC ATC TGG ATT CAG ACA AT-3′

The targeted sequences are chromosomal. The PCR mixture is composed of: ultrapure water, 14.3 µl;

buffer 10×, 2.5 µl; MgCl2 50 mM, 0.75 µl; dNTPs 10 mM, 0.25 µl; FER1-F 10 pmol/µl, 1 µl; rgER2-R

10 pmol/µl, 1 µl; Taq DNA polymerase 5 U/µl, 0.2 µl; and extracted DNA, 5 µl. The cycling

parameters are 94 ºC for 3 min followed by 41 cycles of 94 ºC for 10 s, 60 ºC for 10 s and 72 ºC for

30 s, with a final extension step at 72 ºC for 5 min, and cooling at 15 ºC. The expected amplicon size

is 458 bp.

The accuracy was 0.76 in the 2009 ring test and 0.68 in the 2010 ring test using the DNA extraction

method described by Llop et al. (1999).

Nested PCR according to Llop et al. (2000)

The nested PCR of Llop et al. (2000) uses two sets of primers, which are combined in a single reaction

tube. Because of the different annealing temperatures of the primers the two PCRs are run

consecutively. The external primers are those designed by McManus and Jones (1995) and are based

on sequences of the pEA29 plasmid. The internal primers are those described by Llop et al. (2000).

The external primers are:

AJ75-F: 5′-CGT ATT CAC GGC TTC GCA GAT-3′

AJ76-R: 5′-ACC CGC CAG GAT AGT CGC ATA-3′

The internal primers are:

PEANT1-F: 5′-TAT CCC TAA AAA CCT CAG TGC-3′

PEANT2-R: 5′-GCA ACC TTG TGC CCT TTA-3′

The PCR mixture is composed of: ultrapure water, 36.25 µl; buffer 10×, 5 µl; MgCl2 50 mM, 3 µl;

dNTPs 10 mM, 0.5 µl; AJ75-F 0.1 pmol/µl, 0.32 µl; AJ76-R 0.1 pmol/µl, 0.32 µl; PEANT1-F

10 pmol/µl, 1 µl; PEANT2-R 10 pmol/µl, 1 µl; and Taq DNA polymerase 5 U/µl, 0.6 µl. A DNA

sample volume of 2 µl should be added to 48 µl PCR mix. The cycling parameters are a denaturation

step of 94 ºC for 4 min followed by 25 cycles of 94 ºC for 60 s and 72 ºC for 90 s. This first round

PCR is followed in the same thermocycler by a second denaturation step of 94 ºC for 4 min and 40

cycles of 94 ºC for 60 s, 56 ºC for 60 s and 72 ºC for 60 s, with a final elongation step at 72 ºC for

10 min. The expected amplicon size is 391 bp, although variations in size can occur.

The accuracy was 0.69 and 0.72 in the 2003 and 2010 ring tests, respectively, but increased after

enrichment to 0.84 (King’s B medium) and 0.86 (CCT medium) in the 2003 ring test, and to 0.79

(King’s B) and 0.88 (CCT) in 2010.

3.1.5.4 General considerations for PCR

The PCR protocols may need to be modified (optimized) when using different reagents or

thermocyclers.

After PCR amplification the presence of E. amylovora can be confirmed by sequencing the PCR

products or by restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis. The restriction pattern

observed in the amplicons obtained with the primers of Bereswill et al. (1992) or with the nested PCR

of Llop et al. (2000) can be used to confirm the specificity of the PCR analysis when compared with

the restriction pattern of a known control strain. Restriction digestion should be performed with the

endonucleases DraI and SmaI.



The test on a sample is negative if the E. amylovora-specific amplicon of the expected size (and the

restriction enzyme pattern or amplicon sequence, when applicable) is not detected in the sample but is

detected in all positive controls. The test on a sample is positive if the E. amylovora-specific amplicon

of the expected size is detected, providing there is no amplification from any of the negative controls

and the restriction enzyme pattern or amplicon sequence (when applicable) is indicative of

E. amylovora.

3.1.5.5 Real-time PCR

Based on an evaluation of real-time PCR protocols in the ring tests in 2009 and 2010 (Dreo et al.,

2009; Lopez et al., 2010) the protocol described by Pirc et al. (2009), which targets chromosomal

sequences, was recommended. A duplex real-time PCR based on chromosomal sequences is also

available but has not been ring tested (Lehman et al., 2008).

Real-time PCR according to Pirc et al. (2009)

The following oligonucleotides are used:

Ams116F primer: 5′-TCC CAC ATA CTG TGA ATC ATC CA-3′

Ams189R primer: 5′-GGG TAT TTG CGC TAA TTT TAT TCG-3′

Ams141T probe: FAM-CCA GAA TCT GGC CCG CGT ATA CCG-TAMRA

The reaction is carried out in a final volume of 25 µl. The PCR mixture is composed of: ultrapure

water, 2.5 µl; 2× TaqMan Fast Universal PCR Master Mix (Applied Biosystems1), 12.5 µl; Ams116F

10 pmol/µl, 2.25 µl; Ams189R 10 pmol/µl, 2.25 µl; FAM-labelled Ams141T 10 pmol/µl, 0.5 µl; and

5 µl DNA extract (added to the 20 µl PCR mix). The cycling parameters are: 2 min at 50 ºC; 10 min at

95 ºC; and 40 cycles of 15 s at 95 ºC and 1 min at 60 ºC. The standard mode for temperature ramping

rates on analysers 7900HT and 7900HT Fast (Applied Biosystems1) are: 1.6 ºC/s up and 1.6 ºC/s

down. It is possible to run reactions at slower ramp rates, but with faster ramp rates (up and down at

approximately 3.5 ºC/s) the results were not acceptable. The expected amplicon size is 74 bp.

For analysis of the real-time PCR results, there are usually different options available, automatic or

manual, for setting the signal and noise limits. The instructions for the appropriate software should be

followed. The baseline should be set automatically, and the threshold should be set manually crossing

the exponential phase of the control amplification curves.

The accuracy in the 2010 ring test was 0.80, 0.85 and 0.76 with the DNA extraction method of Llop

et al. (1999), the REDExtract-N-Amp Plant PCR Kit (Sigma-Aldrich1) and Taylor et al. (2001),

respectively.

Real-time PCR according to Gottsberger (2010)

The following oligonucleotides that target the E. amylovora chromosome are used:

hpEaF primer: 5′-CCG TGG AGA CCG ATC TTT TA-3′

hpEaR primer: 5′-AAG TTT CTC CGC CCT ACG AT-3′

hpEaP probe: FAM-TCG TCG AAT GCT GCC TCT CT-MGB

The reaction is carried out in a final volume of 20 µl. The PCR mixture is composed of: ultrapure

water, 6 µl; 2× TaqMan Universal PCR Master Mix (Applied Biosystems1), 10 µl; hpEaF 10 pmol/µl,

1 µl; hpEaR 10 pmol/µl, 1 µl; hpEaP 1 pmol/µl, 1 µl; and 1 µl DNA extract (added to the 19 µl PCR

mix). The cycling parameters are: 2 min at 50 °C; 10 min at 95 °C; and 50 cycles of 15 s at 95 °C and

1 min at 60°C. The expected amplicon size is 138 bp.

For analysis of the real-time PCR results, there are usually different options available, automatic or

manual, for setting the signal and noise limits. The instructions for the appropriate software should be

followed. The baseline should be set automatically, and the threshold should be set manually crossing

the exponential phase of the control amplification curves.



The accuracy of this real-time PCR could not be tested in the 2010 ring test; however, it was tested in

parallel with the real-time PCR of Pirc et al. (2009) by one laboratory and gave the same qualitative

results with the DNA extraction from Llop et al. (1999).

3.1.5.6 Interpretation of results from PCR

Conventional PCR

The pathogen-specific PCR will be considered valid only if:

(1) the positive control produces the correct size amplicon for the bacterium

(2) no amplicons of the correct size for the bacterium are produced in the negative extraction control and the negative amplification control.

If the 16S rDNA internal control primers are also used, the negative (healthy plant tissue) control (if

used), positive control and each of the test samples must produce a 1.6 kilobase (kb) amplicon (16S

rDNA). Note that synthetic or plasmid-positive controls will not produce a 1.6 kb amplicon. Failure of

the samples to amplify with the internal control primers suggests for example that the DNA extraction

has failed, the nucleic acid has not been included in the reaction mixture, compounds inhibitory to

PCR are present in the DNA extract or the DNA has degraded.

The test on a sample will be considered positive if it produces an amplicon of the correct size.

Real-time PCR

The real-time-PCR will be considered valid only if:

(1) the positive control produces an amplification curve with the pathogen-specific primers

(2) no amplification curve is produced (i.e. cycle threshold (Ct) value is 40) in the negative extraction control and the negative amplification control.

If the COX internal control primers are also used, the negative control (if used), positive control and

each of the test samples must produce an amplification curve. Failure of the samples to produce an

amplification curve with the internal control primers suggests for example that the DNA extraction has

failed, the nucleic acid has not been included in the reaction mixture, compounds inhibitory to PCR

are present in the DNA extract or the DNA has degraded.

The test on a sample will be considered positive if it produces a typical amplification curve in an

exponential manner. The Ct value needs to be verified in each laboratory when implementing the test

for the first time.

3.1.5.7 Loop-mediated isothermal amplification

The LAMP protocol was developed and described by Temple et al. (2008) and Temple and Johnson

(2011). It was evaluated in the 2010 ring test because it was considered appropriate for laboratories

not equipped for PCR and it is easy to perform. In the ring test, the LAMP protocol using primers to

detect the chromosomal gene amsL of E. amylovora was found to lack appropriate sensitivity for

analysis of samples with low bacterial populations. Consequently, the LAMP protocol described

below to detect chromosomal amsL is recommended only for the analysis of symptomatic samples

with more than 105–106 c.f.u./ml. The protocol from Temple and Johnson (2011) using primers to

detect pEA29 was not evaluated in the ring test.

The LAMP primers to detect amsL Bare:

ALB Fip: 5′-CTG CCT GAG TAC GCA GCT GAT TGC ACG TTT TAC AGC TCG CT-3′

ALB Bip: 5′-TCG TCG GTA AAG TGA TGG GTG CCC AGC TTA AGG GGC TGA AG-3′

ALB F: 5′-GCC CAC ATT CGA ATT TGA CC-3′

ALB B: 5′-CGG TTA ATC ACC GGT GTC A-3′



Primers Fip and Bip were used at 2.4 μM and primers F and B at 0.2 μM final concentrations. Melting

temperatures for primers were between 58 and 60 °C. The LAMP reaction mixture is composed of:

10× ThermoPol buffer (New England Biolabs1), 5 µl; dNTPs 10 mM, 5 µl; MgSO4 100 mM, 2 µl;

bovine serum albumin (BSA) 10 mg/ml, 2 µl; ALB Fip 100 μM, 1.2 µl; ALB Bip 100 μM, 1.2 µl;

ALB F 10 μM, 1 µl; ALB B 10 μM, 1 µl; Bst DNA polymerase 8 U/µl, 2 µl; template DNA, 5 µl; and

ultrapure water, 24.6 µl. Note that the Bst DNA polymerase, template DNA and ultrapure water are

not added to the master mix, but are added separately after aliquoting the master mix. Before starting

the LAMP reaction, a water bath or a thermocycler is set at 65 °C. The mix is prepared and 18.4 μl is

pipetted into each individual 0.2 ml PCR tube. The Bst DNA polymerase, template DNA and ultrapure

water are then pipetted separately into each tube with master mix. The tubes are spun down in a plate

spinner (1 000 r.p.m. for 30 s) and are placed in the water bath (65 °C) in a holder so the reaction end

is submerged, or in the thermocycler (65 °C) for 55 min. The tubes are removed and allowed to cool

for 10 s.

The test on a sample is positive if the presence of precipitate as cloudiness in the tube or the presence

of a solid white magnesium pyrophosphate precipitate at the bottom of the tube is observed, as for the

positive control. A clear solution indicates a negative test result, as should be observed for the negative

control.

The accuracy in the 2010 ring test was 0.64, but for samples with 105–106 c.f.u./ml the accuracy was

0.80. For this reason LAMP is recommended only for the analysis of symptomatic samples.

3.2 Detection in asymptomatic plants

The recommended screening tests are indicated in the flow diagram in Figure 2.

3.2.1 Sampling and sample preparation

Asymptomatic samples can be processed individually (preferred) or in groups of up to 100 (EPPO,

2013). Precautions to avoid cross-contamination should be taken when collecting the samples and

during the extraction process. Sampling and sample preparation can be performed following one of the

following protocols:

- Blossoms, shoots, fruitlets or stem segments are collected in sterile bags or containers in summer or early autumn, after favourable conditions for the multiplication of E. amylovora

have occurred and when average temperatures rise above about 15 ºC (van der Zwet and Beer,

1995). Young shoots approximately 20 cm in length, or blossoms when available, are cut from

the suspect plant. If analyses need to be performed in winter, five to ten buds are collected per

plant. In the laboratory, blossoms when available, the peduncle and base of the limb of several

leaves from the base of the shoots, or the stem segments are cut from the selected plants. About

0.1–1.0 g plant material is weighed and macerated in antioxidant buffer following the protocol

described in section 3.1.2.

- A sampling procedure reported but not validated for the analysis of twigs of asymptomatic woody material from nurseries is as follows. A sample comprises 100 twigs, each about 10 cm

in length, from 100 plants. If there are several plant genera in the lot, these should be

represented equally in the sample (with a maximum of three genera per sample). From each

sample 30 twigs are randomly taken and each twig is cut into four pieces (producing 120 stem

pieces). The samples are covered with sterile PBS containing 0.1% Tween 20 in Erlenmeyer

flasks, and the flasks are stirred vigorously on a rotary shaker for 1.5 h at room temperature. The

extract is filtered through filter paper held in a sintered glass filter using a vacuum pump, and

the filtrate is collected. The filtrate is used directly for analysis or centrifuged at 10 000 g for

20 min. The pellet is suspended in 4.5 ml sterile PBS. The detection techniques indicated below

are performed. A similar protocol can be applied for leaves, shoots, flowers and buds.

Depending on the timing of the sampling, the expected recovery of E. amylovora will vary, with

maximum recovery in summer (providing weather conditions are favourable to E. amylovora) and

reduced recovery in winter. Samples should be processed immediately by performing enrichment



followed by DASI-ELISA, PCR and isolation using the protocols described for each technique for

symptomatic samples in López et al. (2006). Immunofluorescence is optional; if done, it must be done

directly on the extracts, before enrichment.

3.2.2 Screening tests

Direct analysis of asymptomatic samples is normally negative for E. amylovora because of the low

bacterial population. Consequently, when analysing asymptomatic material, it is an absolute

requirement to perform enrichment from samples prepared in the antioxidant buffer (section 3.2.1)

(Gorris et al., 1996) for 72 h at approximately 25 ºC. It is advisable to perform at least two of these

screening tests based on different biological principles:

- Enrichment-isolation. Follow the procedure for symptomatic samples (section 3.1.3.2).

- Enrichment-DASI-ELISA. Follow the procedure for symptomatic samples (section 3.1.4.1).

- Enrichment-PCR or enrichment-real-time PCR. Use 500–1000 µl of the samples enriched in King’s B and/or CCT media for DNA extraction, then follow the procedure for amplification

according to Taylor et al. (2001) or Llop et al. (2000) (section 3.1.5.3) or the real-time PCR

protocols (section 3.1.5.5).

If any of the screening tests are positive but isolation is negative, isolation of the pathogen from the

extract stored at –80 ºC with glycerol or from the enriched samples should be attempted. When three

tests or more are positive and the isolation is negative, it is reasonable to strongly suspect the presence

of E. amylovora in the sample, but identification and confirmation require isolation of the pathogen

from new samples and subsequent identification of the bacterium.

4. Identification

Identification should be based on results obtained from several techniques because other species of

Erwinia such as E. piriflorinigrans (López et al., 2011), E. pyrifoliae (Kim et al., 1999; Rhim et al.,

1999), E. uzenensis (Matsuura et al., 2012) and other Erwinia spp. (Kim et al., 2001a, 2001b; Palacio-

Bielsa et al., 2012) share similar morphological, serological and molecular characteristics to that of E.

amylovora. Differentiation of E. amylovora from these closely related Erwinia species (that can be

found in similarly symptomatic tissues in some hosts) can be achieved with a combination of three

techniques based on different biological principles:

- PCR based on chromosomal DNA (sections 3.1.5.2 and 4.3.1)

- DASI-ELISA using specific monoclonal antibodies as described for detection (section 3.1.4.1, excluding the enrichment step)

- Inoculation into fire blight hosts to fulfil the requirements of Koch's postulates, including re-isolation of the inoculated pathogen (section 4.4).

For identification of colonies, at least two of these three techniques are recommended to be used.

Other tests can also be used depending on the experience of the laboratory; these are described below.

When required, the final confirmation of a culture’s identification should include a pathogenicity test.

The E. amylovora isolates recommended for use as positive controls are NCPPB 683 and CFBP 1430.

The following collections, among others, can provide different E. amylovora reference strains:

National Collection of Plant Pathogenic Bacteria (NCPPB), Fera, York, United Kingdom; Collection

Française de Bactéries Phytopathogènes (CFBP), French National Institute for Agricultural Research

(INRA), Station Phytobactériologie, Angers, France; Belgian Co-ordinated Collection of Micro-

organisms BCCM/LMG Bacteria Collection, Ghent, Belgium; International Collection of

Microorganisms from Plants (ICMP), Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research, Auckland, New Zealand;

and American Type Culture Collection (ATTC), Manassas, VA, United States. The authenticity of the

strains can be guaranteed only if directly obtained from the culture collections.



4.1 Nutritional and enzymatic identification

Key phenotypic tests are useful and are still used for identification, but it is advised to combine them

with pathogenicity assays and a serological or molecular test. Members of the genus Erwinia are

defined as Gram-negative, facultative anaerobes, motile by peritrichous flagella, rod-shaped, and able

to produce acid from glucose, fructose, galactose and sucrose. Key phenotypic properties (Paulin,

2000) that are common to most strains in E. amylovora, according to the methods of Jones and Geider

(2001), are: oxidase test (–), oxidative/fermentative (O/F) test (+/+), fluorescent pigment in King’s B

medium under UV light (–), levan production (+), nitrate reduction (–), citrate utilization (+), gelatine

liquefaction (+), urease and indol (–) and colony morphology on CCT medium.

The following tests differentiate E. amylovora from E. pyrifoliae and E. piriflorinigrans, although

some physiological and biochemical characteristics may vary for some strains (Table 1).

Table 1. Differences among Erwinia amylovora, Erwinia pyrifoliae and Erwinia piriflorinigrans

Microbiological test Erwinia amylovora Erwinia pyrifoliae Erwinia piriflorinigrans

Gelatin hydrolysis + – –

Inositol† – ND +

Sorbitol† + + –

Aesculin† V – +

Melibiose† – – +

D-Raffinose† – – +

β-Gentiobiose† + – +

Amplification with‡ EP16A/EPI62C CPS1/CPS2C

– + ND

† From Roselló et al. (2006) and López et al. (2011). Oxidation of substrates in API 50 CH strips (bioMérieux)

using the method described by López et al. (2011). More than 90% of strains give the results indicated. ‡ According to Kim et al. (2001b).

ND, not determined; V, variable.

4.1.1 Biochemical characterization

4.1.1.1 Nutritional and enzymatic profiling

Identification of E. amylovora can be obtained biochemically by profiling on the API system 20 E and

50 CH strips (bioMérieux1).

API 20 E1. The manufacturer’s instructions should be followed for preparing the suspension and

inoculating the strip. The strip is incubated at 25–26 ºC. The reading after 48 h for a typical

E. amylovora culture should be as follows: the tests lysine decarboxylase (LDC), ornithine

decarboxylase (ODC), citrate utilization (CIT), H2S production (SH2), urease (URE), tryptophan

deaminase (TDA), indole production (IND) and rhamnose oxidation (RHA) should be negative, while

sucrose oxidation (SAC) should be positive. Other tests may vary by strain, according to Donat et al.

(2007).

API 50 CH1. A suspension of OD 1.0 (at 600 nm wavelength) is prepared in PBS. One millilitre of the

suspension is added to 20 ml Ayers medium (NH4H2PO4, 1 g; KCl, 0.2 g; MgSO4, 0.2 g; bromothymol

blue 0.2%, 75 ml; distilled water, 1 litre; pH 7; sterilized at 120 ºC for 20 min) (Ayers et al., 1919).

The manufacturer’s instructions should be followed for inoculating the strip. The strip is incubated at

25–26 ºC under aerobic conditions. Utilization of the different carbohydrates is observed by the



development of a yellow colour in the well. The reading after 72 h for a typical E. amylovora culture

should be positive for L-arabinose, ribose, D-glucose, D-fructose, mannitol, sorbitol, N-

acetylglucosamine, sucrose, trehalose and β-gentiobiose. The remaining sugars are not utilized by

E. amylovora in these conditions, but some strains can utilize glycerol and D-fucose, according to

Donat et al. (2007).

4.1.1.2 Automated identification

An automated identification system based on differential results of 94 phenotypic tests in a microtiter

plate and accompanying analysis software are commercially available (OmniLog1, Biolog1). The

manufacturers’ instructions should be followed for presumptive identification of suspected

E. amylovora isolates.

4.1.1.3 Fatty acid profiling

In fatty acid profiling (FAP), levan-positive, non-fluorescent colonies are grown on commercially

available trypticase soy agar at 28 ºC for 48 h (Sasser, 1990). An appropriate fatty acid extraction

procedure is applied and the extract is analysed using the commercially available Sherlock Microbial

Identification System (MIS) (MIDI1) or other appropriate software for presumptive identification of

E. amylovora, according to Wells et al. (1994).

4.2 Serological identification

4.2.1 Agglutination

Suspected E. amylovora colonies can be presumptively identified by slide agglutination. A dense

suspension of cells is mixed with a drop of PBS and a drop of E. amylovora specific antiserum

(undiluted, or at 1:5 to 1:10 dilution only) on a slide. Monoclonal antibodies can be used providing

they agglutinate the reference strains. The specificity of the antibodies must be established in advance.

4.2.2 Immunofluorescence

A suspension of approximately 106 cells/ml is prepared in PBS from levan-positive, non-fluorescent

colonies and the immunofluorescence procedure described in section 3.1.4.3 is followed. The

specificity of the antibodies must be established in advance.

4.2.3 ELISA

Direct tissue print-ELISA (section 3.1.4.2), DASI-ELISA (section 3.1.4.1) and indirect ELISA (see

below) for isolate identification can be performed using specific monoclonal antibodies as described

for detection. A mixture of monoclonal antibodies has been validated in two ring tests for DASI-

ELISA. A suspension of approximately 108 cells/ml is prepared in PBS from suspected colonies. The

DASI-ELISA procedure in section 3.1.4.1 can be used, but without the enrichment step.

Indirect ELISA

Pure cultures of the suspected isolates are treated at 100 ºC for 10 min in a water bath or on a heating

block to reduce non-specific reactions with commercial monoclonal antibodies. Aliquots of 200 µl

culture are mixed with an equal volume of carbonate buffer (Na2CO3, 1.59 g; NaHCO3, 2.93 g;

distilled water, 1 litre; pH 9.6) and this solution is applied to at least two wells of a microtiter plate.

The plate is incubated at 37 ºC for 1 h or at 4 ºC overnight. Extracts are flicked out from the wells and

the plate is washed three times with washing buffer (see the DASI-ELISA protocol). The specific

commercial anti-E. amylovora antibodies from Plant Print Diagnòstics SL1 are prepared at the

recommended dilutions. To each well is added 200 µl of the diluted anti-E. amylovora antibody

solution and the plate is incubated at 37 ºC for 1 h. The antibody solution is flicked out from the wells

and the wells are washed as before. The appropriate dilution of secondary antibody-alkaline

phosphatase conjugate (GAM-AP) is prepared in PBS containing 0.5% BSA. To each well is added

200 µl of the diluted conjugate antibody and the plate is incubated at 37 ºC for 1 h. The conjugated



antibody is flicked out from the wells and the wells are washed as before. A 1 mg/ml alkaline

phosphatase substrate (p-nitrophenylphosphate) is prepared in substrate buffer (diethanol amine,

97 ml; 800 ml distilled water; adjusted to pH 9.8 with concentrated HCl; then the volume is adjusted

to 1 000 ml with distilled water). To each well is added 200 µl alkaline phosphatase substrate solution.

The plate is incubated in the dark at room temperature and read at 405 nm at regular intervals within

90 min. A positive test is indicated by substrate conversion to a yellow colour.

4.2.4 Lateral flow immunoassay

A suspension of 107 c.f.u./ml of the pure culture is prepared for presumptive identification. Buffers

and procedures provided by the manufacturers of the kits are used, as described in section 3.1.4.4.

4.3 Molecular identification

4.3.1 PCR

A suspension of approximately 106 cells/ml is prepared in molecular grade sterile water from purified

levan-positive, non-fluorescent colonies and is treated at 100 ºC for 10 min. The appropriate PCR

procedures or the LAMP protocol are applied as described in sections 3.1.5.2 to 3.1.5.4 (directly,

without DNA extraction). When using PCR to identify isolated colonies, 1 U of Taq DNA polymerase

should be used (instead of 2 U as for plant material).

4.3.2 Macro-restriction and pulsed field gel electrophoresis

Pulsed field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) analysis of genomic DNA after XbaI digestion according to

Jock et al. (2002) shows six patterns for E. amylovora European strains. The method can provide

useful information for strain differentiation and has been applied to understanding the spread of fire

blight in Europe (Jock et al., 2002; Donat et al., 2007).

4.4 Pathogenicity techniques

Suspected E. amylovora colonies should be inoculated back into host plants to fulfil Koch’s postulates

and verify their pathogenicity. For plant inoculation, susceptible cultivars of pear (e.g. Conference,

Doyenne du Comice, Williams, Passa Crassane), apple (e.g. Fuji, Gala, Idared, Jonathan), loquat (e.g.

Algerie, Tanaka), Crataegus spp., Cotoneaster spp. or Pyracantha spp. are used. Young shoots are

inoculated by cutting across a young leaf through the central vein with scissors dipped in a

109 c.f.u./ml suspension of each isolate prepared in PBS. The plants are maintained at 20–25 ºC at

approximately 80% relative humidity for one to two weeks. Detached young shoots that have been

surface-sterilized (treated with 70% ethanol for 30 s then washed three times with sterile distilled

water) from greenhouse-grown plants can also be inoculated in the same way and kept in tubes with

sterile 1% agar. The tubes should be kept at 20–25 ºC with 16 h light per day.

Inoculation can also be performed on detached immature fruits of susceptible cultivars of pear, apple

and loquat by placing 10 μl of 109 c.f.u./ml suspensions of the isolates in PBS into a fresh wound on

the surface of disinfected fruits (treated with 70% commercial chlorine for 30 min then washed three

times with sterile distilled water). The fruits should be incubated in a humid chamber at 25 ºC for three

to five days.

E. amylovora-like colonies are re-isolated and characterized from inoculated organs showing typical

fire blight symptoms. A positive test is evident by the oozing of bacteria and browning around the

inoculation site after two to seven days, as seen in the positive E. amylovora control, providing no

lesions are or only a small necrotic lesion is observed at the wound site in the negative control.

Other inoculation techniques are possible. Hypersensitive reactions in tobacco leaves may indicate

expression of the hrp genes of E. amylovora, but this test may be positive for many other plant

pathogenic bacteria. Tobacco plants of cultivars Xanthi or Samsun with more than five to six leaves

should be used. Bacterial suspensions of 109 c.f.u./ml (OD at 600 nm, 1.0) are prepared and a needle

and syringe used to inject the suspensions into the intracellular space of mature leaves. Complete



collapse of the infiltrated tissue after 24–48 h at room temperature is recorded as positive, as observed

in the positive E. amylovora control.

5. Records

Records and evidence should be retained as described in section 2.5 of ISPM 27 (Diagnostic protocols

for regulated pests).

In cases where other contracting parties may be affected by the results of the diagnosis, in particular in

cases of non-compliance (ISPM 13 (Guidelines for the notification of non-compliance and emergency

action) and where the pest is found in an area for the first time, the following records and evidence and

additional material should be kept for at least one year in a manner that ensures traceability: the

original sample, culture(s) of the pest, preserved or slide-mounted specimens or test materials (e.g.

photographs of gels, ELISA plate results printouts and PCR amplicons).

6. Contact Points for Further Information

Further information on this protocol can be obtained from:

Centro de Protección Vegetal, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Agrarias (IVIA), Carretera

Moncada-Náquera km 4.5, 46113 Moncada (Valencia), Spain (María M. López; e-mail:

[email protected]; tel.: +34 963424000; fax +34 963424001).

Plant Health and Environment Laboratory, Investigation and Diagnostic Centres, Ministry for Primary

Industries, 231 Morrin Road, St Johns, Auckland 1140, New Zealand (Robert Taylor; e-mail:

[email protected]; tel.: +64 99093548; fax: +64 99095739).

A request for a revision to a diagnostic protocol may be submitted by NPPOs, regional plant

protection organizations (RPPOs) or Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (CPM) subsidiary bodies

through the IPPC Secretariat ([email protected]), which will in turn forward it to the Technical Panel on

Diagnostic Protocols (TPDP).

7. Acknowledgements

The first draft of this protocol was written by M.M. López (Centro de Protección Vegetal, IVIA, Spain

(see preceding section)) and revised by R. Taylor (Plant Health and Environment Laboratory,

Investigation and Diagnostic Centres, Ministry for Primary Industries, New Zealand (see preceding

section)) and R. Roberts (Tree Fruit Research Laboratory, USDA-ARS, United States).

Most techniques described were ring tested in a DIAGPRO project financed by the European Union in

2003, in an EUPHRESCO project in 2009 and in a Spanish project in 2010.

8. References

The present annex refers to ISPMs. ISPMs are available on the International Phytosanitary Portal

(IPP) at https://www.ippc.int/core-activities/standards-setting/ispms.

Anonymous. 1998. Council Directive 98/57 EC of 20 July 1998 on the control of Ralstonia

solanacearum (Smith) Yabuuchi et al. Official Journal of the European Communities, L235: 1–

39.

Ayers, S.H., Rupp, P. & Johnson, W.T. 1919. A study of alkali-forming bacteria in milk. US

Department of Agriculture Bulletin, 782.

Bereswill, S., Jock, S., Aldridge, P., Janse, J.D. & Geider, K. 1997. Molecular characterization of

natural Erwinia amylovora strains deficient in levan synthesis. Physiological and Molecular

Plant Pathology, 51: 215–225.

Bereswill, S., Pahl, A., Bellemann, P., Zeller, W. & Geider, K. 1992. Sensitive and species-specific

detection of Erwinia amylovora by polymerase chain reaction analysis. Applied and

Environmental Microbiology, 58: 3522–3526.

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.ippc.int/core-activities/standards-setting/ispms



Bonn, W.G. & van der Zwet, T. 2000. Distribution and economic importance of fire blight. In J.

Vanneste, ed. Fire blight: The disease and its causative agent, Erwinia amylovora, pp. 37–54.

Wallingford, UK, CABI. 370 pp.

Bradbury, J.F. 1986. Guide to plant pathogenic bacteria. Kew, Surrey, UK, CAB International

Mycological Institute. 332 pp.

Burrill, T.J. 1883. New species of Micrococcus (bacteria). The American Naturalist, 17: 319.

Donat, V., Biosca, E.G., Peñalver, J. & López, M.M. 2007. Exploring diversity among Spanish

strains of Erwinia amylovora and possible infection sources. Journal of Applied Microbiology,

103: 1639–1649.

Dreo, T., Duffy, B., López, M., Paulin, J.P., Poliakoff, F. & Reisenzein, H. 2009. Development and

validation of innovative diagnostic tools for the detection of fire blight (Erwinia amylovora).

York, UK, EUPHRESCO. Available at http://www.euphresco.org/downloadFile.cfm?id=662

(last accessed September 2012).

EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization). 2013. PM 7/20 (2) Erwinia

amylovora. EPPO Bulletin, doi:10.1111/epp.12019.

EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization). n.d. EPPO Plant Quarantine Data

Retrieval System. Paris, EPPO. Available at http//www.eppo.int/DATABASES/pqr/pqr.htm.

Gorris, M.T., Cambra, M., Llop, P., López, M.M., Lecomte, P., Chartier, R. & Paulin, J.P. 1996.

A sensitive and specific detection of Erwinia amylovora based on the ELISA-DASI enrichment

method with monoclonal antibodies. Acta Horticulturae, 411: 41–45.

Gottsberger, R.A. 2010. Development and evaluation of a real-time PCR assay targeting

chromosomal DNA of Erwinia amylovora. Letters in Applied Microbiology, 51: 285–292.

Ishimaru, E.S. & Klos, E.J. 1984. New medium for detection of Erwinia amylovora and its use in

epidemiological studies. Phytopathology, 74: 1342–1345.

Jock, S., Donat, V., López, M.M., Bazzi, C. & Geider, K. 2002. Following spread of fire blight in

Western, Central and Southern Europe by molecular differentiation of Erwinia amylovora

strains with PFGE analysis. Environmental Microbiology, 4: 106–114.

Jones, A. & Geider, K. 2001. II Gram negative bacteria. B. Erwinia and Pantoea. In N.W. Schaad,

J.B. Jones & W. Chum, eds. Guide for identification of plant pathogenic bacteria, 2nd edn. St

Paul, MN, APS Press.

Kim, W.S., Gardan, L., Rhim, S.L. & Geider, K. 1999. Erwinia pyrifoliae sp., a novel pathogen that

affects Asian pear trees (Pyrus pyrifolia Nakai) International Journal of Systemic Bacteriology,

49: 899–906.

Kim, W.S., Hildebrand, M., Jock, S. & Geider, K. 2001a. Molecular comparison of pathogenic

bacteria from pear trees in Japan and the fire blight pathogen Erwinia amylovora. Microbiology,

147: 2951–2959.

Kim, W.S., Jock, S., Rhim, S-L. & Geider, K. 2001b. Molecular detection and differentiation of

Erwinia pyrifoliae and host range analysis of the Asian pear pathogen. Plant Disease, 85: 1183–

1188.

King, E.O., Ward, M. & Raney, D.E. 1954. Two simple media for the demonstration of pyocyanin

and fluorescein. Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine, 44: 301–307.

Lehman, S.M., Kim, W.K., Castle, A.J. & Svircev, S.M. 2008. Dualplex real-time polymerase chain

reaction reveals competition between Erwinia amylovora and E. pyrifoliae on pear blossoms.

Phytopathology, 98: 673–679.

Llop, P., Bonaterra, A., Peñalver, J. & López, M.M. 2000. Development of a highly sensitive

nested-PCR procedure using a single closed tube for detection of Erwinia amylovora in

asymptomatic plant material. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 66: 2071–2078.

Llop, P., Caruso, P., Cubero, J., Morente, C. & López, M.M. 1999. A simple extraction procedure

for efficient routine detection of pathogenic bacteria in plant material by polymerase chain

reaction. Journal of Microbiological Methods, 37: 23–31.

http://www.euphresco.org/downloadFile.cfm?id=662



Llop, P., Donat, V., Rodríguez, M., Cabrefiga, J., Ruz, L., Palomo, J.L., Montesinos, E. & López,

M.M. 2006. An indigenous virulent strain of Erwinia amylovora lacking the ubiquitous plasmid

pEA29. Phytopathology, 96: 900–907.

López, M.M., Llop, P., Gorris, M.T., Keck, M., Peñalver, J., Donat, V. & Cambra, M. 2006.

European protocol for diagnosis of Erwinia amylovora. Acta Horticulturae, 704: 99–103.

López, M.M., Peñalver, J., Arilla, A., Morente, C., Dreo, T., Pirc, M., Poliakoff, F., Dousset, C.,

Visage, M., Achbani, E., Bersgma-Vlami, M., Drenova, N., Duffy, B., Marín, M., Meekes,

E., Moumni, M., Obradovic, A., Palomo, J., Taylor, R., Stockwell, V. & Reisenzein, H. 2010. Ring test evaluation of techniques for Erwinia amylovora diagnosis and detections. ISHS

12th International Workshop on Fire Blight. Warsaw, Poland, 16–20 August 2010, abstract 18.

López, M.M., Roselló, M.M., Llop, P., Ferrer, S., Christen, R. & Gardan, L. 2011. Erwinia

piriflorinigrans sp. nov., a novel pathogen that causes necrosis of pear blossoms. International

Journal of Systemic and Evolutionary Microbiology, 61: 561–567.

McManus, P.S. & Jones, A.L. 1995. Detection of Erwinia amylovora by nested-PCR and PCR-dot-

blot and reverse blot hybridisations. Phytopathology, 85: 618–623.

Matsuura, T., Mizuno, A., Tsukamoto, T., Shimizu, Y., Saito, N., Sato, S., Kikuchi, S., Uzuki, T.,

Azegami, K. & Sawada, H. 2012. Erwinia uzenensis sp. nov., a novel pathogen that affects

European pear trees (Pyrus communis L.). International Journal of Systemic and Evolutionary

Microbiology, doi:10.1099/ijs.0.032011-0.

Obradovic, D., Balaz, J. & Kevresan, S. 2007. Detection of Erwinia amylovora by novel

chromosomal polymerase chain reaction primers. Mikrobiologiia, 76: 844–852.

Ordax, M., Biosca, E.G., Wimalajeewa, S.C., López, M.M. & Marco-Noales, E. 2009. Survival of

Erwinia amylovora in mature apple fruit calyces through the viable but nonculturable (VBNC)

state. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 107: 106–116.

Palacio-Bielsa, A., Roselló, M., Llop, P. & López, M.M. 2012. Erwinia spp. from pome fruit trees:

Similarities and differences among pathogenic and nonpathogenic species. Trees, 26: 13–29.

Paulin, J.P. 2000. Erwinia amylovora: General characteristics, biochemistry and serology. In J.

Vanneste, ed. Fire blight: The disease and its causative agent, Erwinia amylovora, pp. 87–116.

Wallingford, UK, CABI. 370 pp.

Pirc, M., Ravnikar, M., Tomlinson, J. & Dreo, J. 2009. Improved fireblight diagnostics using

quantitative real-time PCR detection of Erwinia amylovora chromosomal DNA. Plant

Pathology, 58: 872–881.

Powney, R., Beer, S., Plummer, K., Luck, J. & Rodoni, B. 2011a. The specificity of PCR-based

protocols for detection of Erwinia amylovora. Australian Plant Pathology, 40: 87–97.

Powney, R., Smits, T.H., Sawbridge, T., Frey, B., Blom, J., Frey, J.E., Plummer, K.M., Beer,

S.V., Luck, J., Duffy, B. & Rodoni, B. 2011b. Genome sequence of an Erwinia amylovora

strain with pathogenicity restricted to Rubus plants. Journal of Bacteriology, 193: 785–786.

Rhim, S-L., Völksch, B., Gardan, L., Paulin, J-P., Langlotz, C., Kim, S-L. & Geider, K. 1999.

Erwinia pyrifoliae, an Erwinia species different from Erwinia amylovora, causes a necrotic

disease of Asian pear trees. Plant Pathology, 48: 514–520.

Roselló, M., Peñalver, J., Llop, P., Gorris, M.T., Charter, R., Cambra, M. & López, M.M. 2006.

Identification of an Erwinia sp. different from Erwinia amylovora and responsible for necrosis

on pear blossoms. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology, 28: 1–12.

Sasser, M. 1990. Identification of bacteria through fatty acid analysis. In F. Klement, K. Rudolf &

D.C. Sands, eds. Methods in phytobacteriology, pp. 199–204. Budapest, Akademiai Kiadó.

Starr, M.P., Cardona, C. & Folsom, D. 1951. Bacterial fire blight of raspberry. Phytopathology, 41:

9515–9559.

Stöger, A., Schaffer, J. & Ruppitsch, W. 2006. A rapid and sensitive method for direct detection of

Erwinia amylovora in symptomatic and asymptomatic plant tissues by polymerase chain

reaction. Journal of Phytopathology, 154: 469–473.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Powney%20R%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=21131493http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Smits%20TH%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=21131493http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Sawbridge%20T%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=21131493http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Frey%20B%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=21131493http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Blom%20J%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=21131493http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Frey%20JE%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=21131493http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Plummer%20KM%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=21131493http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Beer%20SV%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=21131493http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Beer%20SV%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=21131493http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Luck%20J%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=21131493http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Duffy%20B%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=21131493http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Rodoni%20B%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=21131493http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21131493##



Tanii A., Tamura, O. & Ozaki, M. 1981. The causal agent of a fire blight-like disease. Annals of the

Phytopathological Society of Japan, 47: 102.

Taylor, R.K., Guilford, P.J., Clark, R.G., Hale, C.N. & Forster, R.L.S. 2001. Detection of Erwinia

amylovora in plant material using novel polymerase chain reaction (PCR) primers. New Zealand

Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science, 29: 35–43.

Temple, T.N. & Johnson, K.B. 2011. Evaluation of loop-mediated isothermal amplification for rapid

detection of Erwinia amylovora on pear and apple fruit flowers. Plant Disease, 95: 423–430.

Temple, T.N., Stockwell, V.O. & Johnson, K. 2008. Development of a rapid detection method for

Erwinia amylovora by loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP). Acta Horticulturae,

793: 497–504.

Thomson, S.V. 2000. Epidemiology of fire blight. In J.

dp 13: erwinia amylovora - ippc · united states are distinct from the strains on other hosts...

Documents